DIP27 available for destruction

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 21:01:04 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 05:16 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> ...
>> As usual, destroy, I don't expect to get unanimity on that. 
>> But I tried
>> very hard to get most benefit of actual situation, including 
>> the
>> possibility of optional parentheses in some situations (even 
>> if I'm not
>> the biggest fan of it, I recognize that they are nice).
>
> If breaking code is an option, this is almost fine.
>
> Change the optional parens part to "optional parentheses are 
> valid for CTFE calls", and you might have me on board. It is 
> also simpler, less ad-hoc, and easier to implement than what 
> the DIP currently states.

Can you elaborate on that ? I'm not 100M satisfied with that part 
of the DIP, where I see everything else as a major improvement 
over current situation.